A Review of NEPA, a Novel Fixed Antiemetic Combination with the Potential for Enhancing Guideline Adherence and Improving Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients Receiving Highly or Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy Who Experienced Breakthrough CINV in Cycle 1 of Chemotherapy: A Phase II Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Although control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is substantially improved with guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, breakthrough CINV remains a significant clinical patient problem. In subsequent cycles after breakthrough occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend adding agents not used in the initial cycle. This study was designed to evaluate the use of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) plus dexamethasone with or without olanzapine for the prevention of CINV in the second cycle of chemotherapy for patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) who developed breakthrough CINV in their first cycle despite guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetics.

METHODS

This was a Phase 2, single center, open-label study. Patients received guideline-recommended prophylactic antiemetics in Cycle 1 based on the chemotherapy emetogenicity. Patients who experienced breakthrough CINV in Cycle 1 received intravenous (IV) NEPA (Day 1) plus dexamethasone (Days 1-4) and olanzapine (Days 1-4) for HEC or IV NEPA (Day 1) plus dexamethasone (Days 1-4) for MEC in Cycle 2.

RESULTS

Of the 227 patients enrolled in Cycle 1, 100 patients (n = 37 HEC, 63 MEC) experienced breakthrough CINV and received the NEPA-based treatments in Cycle 2. The complete response (no emesis/no rescue use) rates [95% confidence intervals] during the overall (0-120 h) phase were 76% [59%, 88%] and 79% [67%, 89%] in the HEC and MEC groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results show that NEPA with or without olanzapine is an effective approach for CINV prevention for patients receiving HEC or MEC who develop breakthrough CINV after their first course of chemotherapy. The results support the antiemetic guideline recommendations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06065722.

The evolving landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: inspiration from cisplatin-based antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant advancements in antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), over 40% of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy still experience CINV in clinical practice. To figure out underlying reasons and outline the landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, our focus centered on cisplatin, one of the most commonly used highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs. We aimed to elucidate trends in CINV management by analyzing data extracted from cisplatin-based clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted CINV-related data from 156 eligible randomized clinical trials, comprising 39 antiemetic trials and 117 non-antiemetic trials, all with patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequently, we conducted separate analyses of the extracted CINV data within antiemetic and non-antiemetic trial groups, as well as comparisons between them.

RESULTS

Over the years, both antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials showed significant improvements in no-vomiting rates, although gains in no-nausea rates were more modest. Notably, antiemetic trials frequently underreported outcomes related to nausea control. There was a distinct yet gradually narrowing disparity in vomiting control rates between antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials during the same time frame. While non-antiemetic trials achieved comparable CINV control rates using the same antiemetic regimen as antiemetic trials, they exhibited significantly greater variations in no-vomiting and no-nausea rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The landscape of CINV management in cisplatin-based chemotherapy has evolved significantly alongside improvements in antiemetic agents. Substantial progress has been made in emesis control within both antiemetic and non-antiemetic cisplatin-based clinical trials. More attention should be paid on the chemotherapy induced nausea, and multiple approaches are needed to increase guideline adherence in future clinical practice.

The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV.

METHODS

A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

The Emesis Trial: Depressive Glioma Patients Are More Affected by Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

Glioma patients face a limited life expectancy and at the same time, they suffer from afflicting symptoms and undesired effects of tumor treatment. Apart from bone marrow suppression, standard chemotherapy with temozolomide causes nausea, emesis and loss of appetite. In this pilot study, we investigated how chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affects the patients' levels of depression and their quality of life.

METHODS

In this prospective observational multicentre study (n = 87), nausea, emesis and loss of appetite were evaluated with an expanded MASCC questionnaire, covering 10 days during the first and the second cycle of chemotherapy. Quality of life was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BN 20 questionnaire and levels of depression with the PHQ-9 inventory before and after the first and second cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

CINV affected a minor part of patients. If present, it reached its maximum at day 3 and decreased to baseline level not before day 8. Levels of depression increased significantly after the first cycle of chemotherapy, but decreased during the further course of treatment. Patients with higher levels of depression were more severely affected by CINV and showed a lower quality of life through all time-points.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that symptoms of depression should be perceived in advance and treated in order to avoid more severe side effects of tumor treatment. Additionally, in affected patients, delayed nausea was most prominent, pointing toward an activation of the NK₁ receptor. We conclude that long acting antiemetics are necessary totreat temozolomide-induced nausea.

The effectiveness of NEPA in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting among chemo naive patients in an Indian setting

Background

Chemotherapy induced nausea- vomiting (CINV) is considered as the most common, feared and most troublesome side effect of chemotherapy. NEPA (NEtupitant 300 mg + PAlonosetron 0.50 mg) is the first commercially available oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of two active antiemetic agents in India. The present study was planned to evaluate the effectiveness of NEPA in the real world setting of India.

Methods

This was a multicentric retrospective study conducted in two centers in India. The data of all chemonaive patients, who were prescribed NEPA was analyzed. Effectiveness i.e. complete response and complete protection in controlling overall, acute and delayed phase was analyzed.

Results

A total of 329 patients were enrolled in the study. 260 received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen and 69 received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimen. Among all the enrolled patients, complete response in acute, delayed and overall phase was 93, 85.71 and 85.41% respectively; and completed protection was 88.44, 81.76 and 80.54% respectively. Those who received HEC regimen, the completed response and complete protection in overall phase was 84.61 and 79.61% respectively and those who received MEC regimen the completed response and complete control in overall phase was 84.05 and 84.05% respectively.

Conclusion

A single oral dose of NEPA targeting dual pathways showed effective control of nausea-vomiting in patients on the HEC and MEC regimens and had good control over nausea-vomiting in acute, delayed and overall phase of nausea-vomiting.

Phase 3 Study of Palonosetron IV Infusion Vs. IV Bolus for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis After Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.

METHODS

Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

Background

NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.

Results

Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).

Conclusion

The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

Rolapitant for the prevention of nausea in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Most patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting without antiemetic prophylaxis. While neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) effectively prevent emesis, their ability to prevent nausea has not been established. We evaluated the efficacy of the long-acting NK-1RA rolapitant in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea using post hoc analyses of data from 3 phase 3 trials. Patients were randomized to receive 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo approximately 1-2 hours before chemotherapy in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Nausea was assessed by visual analog scale during the acute (≤24 hours), delayed (>24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases. Post hoc analyses by treatment group (rolapitant vs control) were performed on pooled data within patient subgroups receiving cisplatin-based, carboplatin-based, or anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. In the cisplatin-based chemotherapy group, significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no nausea (NN) in the overall (52.3% vs 41.7% [P < .001]; absolute benefit [AB] = 10.6%), delayed (55.7% vs 44.3% [P < .001]; AB = 11.4%), and acute (70.5% vs 64.3% [P = .030]; AB = 6.2%) phases. Similar results were observed in the carboplatin-based chemotherapy group, with significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reporting NN in the overall (62.5% vs 51.2% [P = .023]; AB = 11.3%) and delayed (64.1% vs 53.6% [P = .034]; AB = 10.5%) phases. In the AC-based chemotherapy group, patients receiving rolapitant or control reported similar NN rates during the overall and delayed phases. Rolapitant effectively prevents nausea during the overall and delayed phases in patients receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy.